NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. SADIQ BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurance company has challenged the award made in favour of first respondent interalia contending that medical evidence adduced by claimant is highly discrepant and irreconcilable. In the circumstances, the Commissioner should have considered the application filed by the insurance company under Section 11 of the Workmen's Compensation Act r/w Rule 16 of the Karnataka Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1966, to refer claimant for examination by an Orthopedic surgeon of J.J.M. Medical hospital at Davangere.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for insurance company and perused the records.

(3.) THE medical evidence adduced by claimant is highly discrepant and not helpful for proper assessment of nature of injuries and permanent physical disability. In the circumstances, the Commissioner should have accepted the application filed under Section 11 of the Workmen's Compensation Act r/w Rule 16 of the Karnataka Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1966, and directed claimant to appear before the Orthopedic surgeon of J.J.M. Medical Hospital at Davangere or before the Medical Board at the cost of insurance company. The Commissioner has rejected the application by assigning untenable reasons. In view of discrepant medical evidence, the commissioner should not have determined compensation in terms of the impugned award.